A.F.R. Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18557 of 2021 Applicant :- Anil Bhati @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Pandey,Navnath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Harikesh,Prakash Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard Mr G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr Harikesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, namely, Anil Bhati @ Sonu for release on bail, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0850 of 2020, under Sections 307, 120-B IPC, P.S. Phase-3, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3. As per the version of the FIR, on 14.4.2019, the informant, namely, Yogendra Yadav and his brother Shivram Yadav had gone to village Bahlolpur to attend a function in family. It is alleged that in the night at about 11.00 to 11.30 P.M. two unknown persons on a motorcycle made indiscriminate firing upon the house of the informant with an intention to kill him, and at that time only the security guard, namely, Chandra Pal was present at his house, who is said to have telephoned the informant about the alleged incident. It is further alleged that the informant, after reaching his house, is said to have informed the police by ''dialling 100' and the police is said to have reached the place of occurrence and recovered the empty cartridges from outside the house. It is further alleged that prior to this incident, in the year 2000, the uncle of the informant, namely, Charan Singh son of Risal had been murdered by accused Santan and Mukesh along with others and the said accused persons have been convicted for life by trial Court. It is further alleged that Arun Yadav and Amit Yadav, the nephew of the same family of aforesaid accused, had also killed his cousin, namely Shiv Kumar Yadav son of Rajveer Singh on 16.11.2017 with the help of the shooters of Sunder Bhati and Anil Bhati's gang. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came in light during investigation in the statement of co accused Aashu Jat. It is further submitted that the applicant has no concern with the said co accused and the alleged incident. 5. It is further contended that the applicant was already in Jail in connection with Case Crime No. 751 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 149, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Bisrak, District Gautam Budh Nagar and in the said case, he was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc bail Application No. 19942 of 2018. But he could not be released due to imposition of National Security Act, 1980, which was imposed upon him vide order dated 5.12.2018, and the said detention was later-on challenged by the applicant and after the quashing of the said detention order by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2019, the applicant was finally released from District Jail on 6.12.2019. 6. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 307, 120-B IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no evidence of conspiracy and the statement of co accused is not admissible to be taken into account. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2020. 7. It is again submitted that it is not in dispute that when the incident in question took place, applicant was in jail and nothing is on record to show that applicant had participated directly in the occurrence. It is further submitted that after grant of bail the applicant herein in the present case, shall never misuse the concession of bail. 8. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have contended that there is high possibility of threat and danger to the life and safety of the complainant and his family members, as the applicant is having long criminal history of 15 cases against him under various heinous sections. 9. Learned counsel for the informant has also stated that from perusal of the statements of the informant and co accused Ashu Jaat @ Praveen said to have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., involvement of accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. The relevant extract of the statement of the informant said to have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is as under:-